Share
1,759 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 871
clock Created with Sketch. 29/06/22
21:07
Share
Originally posted by W0mb@t:
↑
Lets put this quickly into perspective for existing shareholders as I have had a little bit more time to review. unproven claim for $38m against the former owner for breach of the offtake agreement. I say unproven as It has not been tested , it has merely been admitted by the Liquidator ( and MYL Board ) . Claims for damages are just that , a claim with is usually a shopping list for every damn thing. General damages claims are usually taken with a grain of salt by a liquidator because usually there isnt anything to pay however they are required to enquire and test such a claim if there is a pool of money . The difference here is that because MYL has effectively agreed to pay Hartree in shares for whatever they claim it pretty much discharges any onus of proof from Hartree or enquiry that a liquidator may make. T he damages claim , which I hasten to add I have not read, will be the economic loss for the life of the earlier offtake agreement. I do not know the terns of the earlier offtake agreement but I wouldnt be surprised if it differs much from this new one.
Expand
I hear you, but given there were (I think) 16 interested parties and offers, Hartree, as secured creditor, held all the cards. Together with some level of 'desperation' to get their hands on a viable project, especially one well known to management, and without paying moon money, on balance don't you think we got a fair deal?
